The Reform Party was disappointed with the PM’s speech. This was an opportunity for the PM to address some of the pressing issues facing this country and his failure to do so has demonstrated once again that our government is out of touch with the people. Here is the Party’s view on some of these issues and our proposed solutions.

Economic performance

The PM praised Singapore’s economic performance this year. However this has been built on the back of a vigorous US recovery, which is now fading fast. Singapore’s performance is just a leveraged version of what most of the other Asian economies have experienced. Given that imports subtracted 2.4% from US GDP growth in the last quarter it is clear that we are fast approaching the limits of what can be achieved by reliance on US demand. There are few signs that Asia has replaced the US as a source of final demand. So we can expect a dramatic slowdown in growth for the second half of this year and perhaps even a technical recession where growth is negative over two quarters. And let’s remember that while unemployment may have been contained, Singapore workers have suffered real wage cuts that are a long way from being restored. The wage guidelines for next year of a 3% pay rise would still be lower than expected inflation of 3-4%. In other words real wages will continue to fall.

The Reform Party is of the view that our level of net saving is unnecessarily high and we would do more to stimulate domestic consumption by reducing taxes or increasing transfer payments to the less well-off.

Foreign worker/Immigration policies

Buried in the PM’s speech was the eye-opening detail that 400,000 Singaporeans (or about 20% of the domestic labor force) are receiving workfare of an average $1,000 each (most of which goes into CPF). This is the segment of the population which has suffered most from the PAP’s open-door foreign worker policy, yet there were no policy measures announced to help them.

The PM relied on isolated anecdotes to downplay the level of anti- foreign worker sentiment that threatens to spill over into xenophobia. He provided no reassurances on immigration policy and no evidence of how the PAP policies have benefited the ordinary Singaporean or older retrenched workers. The folksy stories of aunties do however concur with our experience that Singaporeans are not xenophobic by nature but have been pushed that way by PAP policy.

The Reform Party supports the policy of allowing easy access to foreign workers with special skills, but we should ultimately be looking to provide Singaporeans with the skill sets to take their place over the longer term. We do not agree that this country needs foreign workers to compete directly with Singaporeans on all levels of the workforce.

It is difficult to see how Microsoft’s need for skilled software engineers translates into the necessity of having foreign chambermaids or shop assistants. Nor indeed why any MNC (such as Microsoft) if it lacks skilled engineers should not reciprocate for the benefits of being based in Singapore, by running training courses to bring our local engineers up to the specification that they require. It is difficult to see why we should fight so hard to retain industries that employ 80-90% foreign workers as it just increases the competition for domestic inputs whose supply is inelastic, such as land.

The Reform Party is pleased that the PM has responded to our call for the need to raise productivity. Unfortunately PAP policies such as the current excessively liberal foreign worker policy are antithetical to productivity growth as they only serves to keep cost of labour low. The government has yet to show any real commitment or clear cut long term strategy to increasing productivity.

National Service

The only concrete initiative was to reward NS men with a grant of $9,000. Few details were provided other than to say that it could be used to pay for further education (which the Reform Party would make free for NS men) and for housing (where sky-high prices are the result of deliberate government policy in restricting the supply of land and growing the population at an unsustainable rate).

The Reform Party believes that $9,000 in a restricted account does not come close to reflecting the economic cost Singaporean NS men face with two years of lost earnings. Furthermore, the PM said that future education fees will have to rise, presumably to cover this additional expense.

The Reform Party continues to propose, in this regard:

Lower taxes for NS men

Obligation on foreign students on Singapore scholarships wishing to work here to serve NS

Cutting the NS period down to a year at maximum within 5 years

A target for zero death in training

Education

On education, the Reform Party has repeatedly called for a reduction in the weighting given to PSLE in order to provide a more holistic education. We have also called for an abolishment of streaming at the early stages of education, between N levels and O levels as we want to offer opportunities for late bloomers who do poorly at PSLE to move up if they do well.

The party is disappointed with the PM’s 30% target for enrollment and his excuses for not expanding further. Again the PAP demonstrate their inability to formulate any long term innovative strategy for increased enrollment in institution where learning is targeted at the skills required in the workforce. The Reform Party has also called for the need to increase the percentage of university enrolment up to advanced nation standards.

The PM failed to touch on any measures that would ensure all of Singapore’s children receive an equal right to an education, including the physically challenged, those with learning difficulties, or other issues such as familial economic hardship.

Conclusion

It is interesting to see yet again how much Reform Party thinking is now reflected in Government policy but this begs the question of why we need a PAP government in the first place. In response, I reproduce below the Reform Party’s 19 policy pledges so the electorate can judge who has the welfare of ordinary Singaporeans at the heart of their policies. It is all very well to talk of the Singapore spirit but this is a government which continues to insist on running Singapore as a business and has downgraded Singapore from Sovereign Nation status to International city status.

Our Pledges

Providing Cheaper and Better Lower-Income Housing by releasing more land for house-building and allowing the private sector a greater role

Universal health insurance to be funded through current CPF contributions replacing current Medisave and Medishield schemes

Basic Old Age Pension payable to all provided they have worked and paid into CPF for a sufficient number of years

Reform of CPF to make contributions above those necessary to fund health and unemployment insurance and basic pension voluntary

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

About kjeyaretnam

I'm a Singaporean economist who became an opposition activist. I blog to provide an alternative to the porkies that the Pinkies tell. It just so happens that my alternative is the truth. That's why I've never been sued in any civil or criminal court no matter how hard hitting my criticism.
I'm quoted and interviewed and asked to speak across the world but largely censored in Singapore in an effort to silence my political opinions.
The left hate me because they think I split their vote and because I eschew their outmoded economic models. Models that don't work.
The Right and the Conservatives hate me because I'm a liberal.
I'm not sure what the middle think of me. I don't think there are more than a handful of people in the middle, here in Singapore.
I'm a Singaporean born and bred, dual heritage, my parents Singaporean established here before the State of Singapore was created. I'm not Eurasian.
I read economics at Cambridge and could be broadly described as from the Keynesian school but I believe in interventions. I was formerly a successful hedge fund manager. After economics and politics my greatest interests are history, film and Makan. I run but I run so I can eat like a Singaporean.

14 Responses to RP’s Response to PM’s National Day Message

RP’s minimum wage to replace workfare proposal is an important one. Minimum wage is a commitment by the employers to the standard and cost of living in Singapore, while the Workfare is trying to make Singapore beholden to the government paid for by all citizens. The former is certainly a more substianable and equitable model.

…- If FWs are more expensive to hire, does that mean they work in jobs Singaporeans supposedly don’t want to work at or those are jobs we lack the manpower for?

If we need them to do jobs that we dont want to do, then its pointless to increase levy right?

– Does he mean something like to attract MNCs here and provide PMETS jobs for Singaporeans while the lower tier jobs are to be fufilled by FWs?

Yes, that is the intention. But how can you ensure that the PMET jobs are going to locals? Because from my experience, most of them are going to Foreign Workers. E.g. Barclays in SG hired less than 10% locals. And their rental in Central Singapore is heavily subsidised by EDB (that means with Taxpayer’s money). The skills they need are nothing special. There is no gurantee that they will hire locals.

And as a NS man who has paid the price of two and a half years and gone back every year save one since I ORDed, how do you intend to address my grievances in the disparity in sacrifice made for the country if such plans do materialize because you promised it just to win votes.

I am disappointed that none of the opposition parties took a stand with what the PM’s speech was missing on the Garantee on your money with local banks ,due to the fact in the economy is still in bad shape in the US -unemployment is rising ,there should be an 1 yr extension with the banks Garantee to all singaporeans and PR’s.

About the current education system why is there a gap with those untrained workers and skilled workers who cant do their furthur studies in a local ploytecnic or ITE if they dont meet the necessary requirements after their tranings with the local CDC and the NTUC employability dept.There should be a system where completion of a screening exam with your local NTUC/CDC with specific higher cources should lead one to furthur his studies with the Polytecnic,applicants could also take another screening exam with the Polyecnic/ITE upon enrollement .

Hey I feel that NS should not be reduced further. Young Singaporean men should be trained until they have attained a high level of combat-effectiveness, which I feel that only 1 year is unable to achieve. Furthermore, the Government should consider following the Israeli system of conscription whereby ladies would also have to serve the Nation.

i agree that s’pore is in a desperate need of pluralistic democracy, and i personally wish for 30-40% of non-PAP as members of parliament, nevertheless, i feel that your manifesto is overly wishful and may be difficult to justify when contested.

mr Jeyaretnam, can i suggest that single NSmen be given the privilege of being able to purchase hdb flats even when they are not married.

this will acknowledge the sacrifices they make, and will also help to alleviate the obstacles towards starting a family.

the BTO system is ridiculous as it requires married couples to wait 2-3 years for a flat, sometimes longer. If single NSmen can get a flat then they will have a home with which to start a family straight away.

giving single NSmen their own space will also allow them to be more independent and more attractive to the fairer sex since they have their own space, and are not living in their parents’ house. the wife can just move in with the NSman once they get married, there is no need to do a silly balloting and waiting for 3 years before getting a space.

i have also suggested other changes to the hdb system please see more at my blog.

No, Wilfred, we will be relying on using part of CPF contributions to fund health insurance and a basic old age pension. These will be extensions of what is already done with Medisave and Medishield and the requirement that CPF holders buy an annuity. We will also be including the surpluses of GLC companies and Temasek in our calculation of what is available for spending and moving to a balanced budget position over the business cycle rather than substantial net saving by the government as is the case at the moment. Savings can also be found in wasteful and unproductive spending in some of the ministries like Defence without compromising national security. Also cutting some of corporate subsidies and tax breaks that are unnecessary if we keep the overall tax rate low. The minimum income proposal will be a replacement of workfare and will take account of where the minimum wage is set. It will not be paid to those who do not work except in cases of severe mental or physical disability.